Errh, come on... the difference here is lust in a nightclub and a desperate medical situation - you DO need protection.

Many people on suffering a heart attack vomit - and the very action of chest compressions itself increases even more.

With the dry air in the cabin, the crews lips could have small cracks in allowing any infection to cross-over...

Who is to say whether anyone you are working on, is not suffering from pneumonia,meningitis,herpes,hiv,tuberculosis etc or a hepatitis carrier - most of these can be deadly....

There is no question that proper protection MUST be provided and that MUST be used and properly trained in the use thereof...

Alibaba

I don't knoe if you misunderstood my post, but what I am saying is....

1 - airlines rely on travelling health professionals to assist

2 - these people should be provided with the equipment required, to do their job

No more and no less.

I am not disputing that the kit is carried, but the nurse said she was not provided with it.

That is my point.

Please re-read my original post and you will see this is what I said.

Thanks for the advice 3 greens, I have done what you said. :ooh:

The equipment was and is aboard the a/c. The reason why it wasn't used is unknown...... Unless you have the answer? ;)

It could be a multiple of reasons why it wasn't used. Don't forget the Nurse's and Dr's involved with this situation would have had high adrenaline levels just as much as anyone else. A report will show the outcome of events and procedures followed. It is not always individuals that are at fault but could be procedures or other causal effects with human factors. It seems too many people on this website like to point a finger of blame at a person or company without evidence or just cause. :=

The procedures could have been wrong or Cabin Crew Fatigue could be an issue. 6 early 12 hr days in succession could be a reason? Who knows? Only a detailed report from the IAA, RYR, Coroner and or the Irish equivalent of the AAIB would show the factors involved and how the emergency was handled.

I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional but the person who might be in this terrible situation.... It would be stupid and unprofessional not to ask for help from a medical professional in this situation and would also make the news if not asked and a DR was onboard who could have given assistance. After all it is the person's life that is at stake here. Not to ask for help from someone involved in this profession would be criminal in my mind in an event such as this.

The point I was trying to make about the equipment is referring to a barrier and latex gloves which are aboard the a/c. If the nurse or someone on the thread was referring to equipment that should clear the airway? Well that is not aboard and that is something people should take up with the relevant regulatory authorities. Not RYR. But as someone previously stated a Cabin Crew member sticking a plastic tube down someone’s neck is not something I would advice. Either in a legal context or that of safety issue.

hello final 3gr.

if & i mean if the nurse was given the first aid kit, would she not find what she's looking for in this kit? she is after all supposed to have more experience with this medical stuff & so on. as said before, until the investigation in this tragic accident is made public, i think it's premature to jump to conclusions & all the ryr bashing is pure nonsense.

Alibaba & Blackmail

Please note that I am not bashing Ryanair, my point is made generally. The fact that the airline in question is Ryanair is irrelevant as far as I am concerned and your sensitivity to inferred criticism is your problem, not mine.

Allibaba, you said "I don't particularly think it is the airlines that are relying on the help of a medical professional", but if you look in the first post it says quite clearly that the aircraft commander appealed for assistance - absolutely the right thing to do, I think that we agree on that.

I have no idea why the kit was not given to the nurse and am not trying to judge the reasons why, nor do I dispute that the aircraft carried the supplies required.

Once again, my point is that if health professionals are asked to assist, they should be provided with the gloves and masks.

After all, they might be putting their own life on the line by not using this basic equipment.

So your point is general 3 greens. The answer to your point is that the equipment is onboard.

As far as I am aware unless someone can tell me that I am wrong? It is a JAA and or an IAA requirement to have these parts of equipment onboard. So most airlines if not all airlines flying a/c of this size should have the equipment. That is what RYR have and so have met the regulatory obligations.

Steam Chicken; the commonwealth is no longer the powerhouse in the world it used to be sadly. Get over it. :)

standards can be different
 

As I mentioned above a few years ago I was involved in an in-flight emergency with a young guy en-route on BA to LHR from BOS. Equipment was very good (2 large boxes with medications, syringes, tubes, gloves etc.) as was the cabin crew, assisted very profesionally and calmly. So it can be done differently - and shouldn't it be the best equipment if the health of your paying customers is concerened - as with the flying equipment? Or shouldn't you at least know WHERE the kit is? Of course the nurse wouldn't know, its the responsibility of the crew! So, if as it seems the ac had the kit on board, why was the crew unable to deliver it in an obvious emergency situation? That seems to be the main question here, is it not?

Alibaba

As you prove to be incapable of understanding my point, I will not try and make it any further.

Why don't you read Grimmrad's post, that summarises it elegantly.

well spoken
 

Completely agree with you F3G. If the kit is on board and if there is an emergencey than the crew should be able to provide it. As far as I remember the nurse said that she did not get gloves, I don't recall demands for laryngoscobe, tube and respirator...
Certainly, if you are out in the woods and someone needs CPR you have to make your decision and usually do it. But on board of a plane that obviously has to be equipped by law with some minimal equipment (gloves, mask) you should not have to make that decision in the first place!

To be fair to Mo'L, he did at least say on the RTé interview that they would be having an internal inquiry to establish why the CC couldn't find the kit which should have been on board - if indeed that was what happened as has been stated by the nurses.

Who did the first pre-flight? Presumably that included a check of the emergency equipment inventory?

Mind you Mo'L could have saved a lot of hassle by saying: "We're all very sad indeed about this poor woman passing away. We also thank the nurses and doctors who came to help for doing the best they could for her and we will also be using their expert knowledge to establish what more we could do were this sad tragedy ever to happen again"

And if pressed about where/what had happened to the first aid equipment: "We will be carrying out an internal inquiry and addressing all the comments made by the passengers who tried so hard to save this poor woman. If we find that there were any shortcomings on our part on this occasion, we will ensure that they are rectified immediately".

So, due to the pressure(?) of the situation, the Ryanair cabin crew were unable to help by getting the first aid kit. God help us all if any of their fleet are involved in a real emergency. These cc are meant to help in aircraft evacuation for heaven's sake!!

As a pax, I regard the ability of cc to provide a first aid kit, as a relatively simple task. That is, of course, assuming they have one.

Rumour has it that during an emergency a couple of RYR CC were unable to open a door. All training done by a third party. Maybe a look at their training department is called for.

3 green; I can honestly say that I don't understand your point? What are you trying to say? Is "grimmrad" or "10second survey" doing the talking for you here, because you don't want to come out and say exactly what you want to say in fear of being accused of being just another RYR basher? If you want to say it, then say it! At least have a pair of b:mad:s.

The equipment was available. Why it wasn't used will come out in an investigation. Did the nurse ask for it after or before giving CPR? Did the crew think as CPR was already being given the nurse's didn't need the barrier? In a hospital ER, maybe a barrier would be provided automatically by act of procedure and CPR continued? Can you say the crew knew this? Who knows? Most people on here certainly do not know what happened as they were not there. That is for sure.

It is interesting to see you have read the final report into the investigation grimmrad.:D The crew should have supplied the equipment etc. Again, how do you know whether they did or not? If someone screwed up here without any human factor problems just by shear incompetence, something will have to be done no doubt.

10secondsurvey; RYR as far as I am aware carried nearly 35 million people last year. Do you not think different crews from RYR's many bases around Europe would have not dealt with emergencies?

Look further down the Rumours and News and you will see another RYR emergency that was dealt with professionally and without incident. I would say RYR have emergencies the same as any other operator and deal with them on the whole professionally and without incident. It doesn't make the news because it was handled in an expeditious and professional manor most probably.

Now getting to the fact that RYR have multi national crews. Can I ask is there a problem with this? Is the crew less able to deal with an emergency? I think there is a bit of bigotry concerned with this subject. If people have a problem with multi nationals then they should think long and hard and decide if the problem is with them or ourselves and our own possible racist sentiments?

The equipment should have been provided 3 green I have no difference in opinion to you on that point. I agree. All I am trying to say is pre-empting an investigation as to why the nurse didn't or couldn't use the barrier is wrong. There is alot of the mud slinging at Ryanair without knowning the facts which will come after the investigation and reports are written. Not by us now, guessing on a web forum.

first aid
 

10sec's

there are "normally" 3 first aid kits on board. one in bin 14def & 2 in last rh bin(row 33def). contents are published in the first aid manual.
again, "normally" the presence/conformity of these items & other things, O2 & fire extinguishers etc. are checked when the cabincrews perform their cabin safety/security check after boarding the aircraft for their first flight of the day.
as the hot topic here centers aroud the first aid kits, the cc can only check the precence & the seal of the box & hope the contents are ok.
the n°1 then informs the captain,who then signs the plog that the inspection is carried out correctly.

Alibaba

What part of "medical professionals should be provided with masks and gloves" are you having difficulty understanding?

And at the risk of being boring, I really couldn't care less that the airline involved was Ryanair, my point is that if airlines (in general) wish medical professional to assist with mouth to mouth ressucitation, they should give them the masks and gloves.

Got it?

Couldn't agree more. 3 greens. :ok:

The airlines do supply the equipment and I think they would want it used. I am not sure if you are medical professional or not but I would say it is the person on the floor with the problem that wants the equipment to be used just as much as you.

That person can catch something from you just as much as you obtaining something from them don't forget.

Just caught up on this rapidly expanding thread. Don't you guys ever sleep?? Just to clarify the new UK Resuscitation guidelines (taught on all new FA courses) still require lung inflations (ratio of 2 inflations to 30 chest compressions). However, it was recognised in drawing up the new guidelines that chest compressions were comparitively more important - compressing the chest to squirt the blood round the body also squashes the lungs to a certain extent and they partially reinflate between compressions, although of course this isn't as effective as proper rescue breathing. It was also noted that people who were reluctant to do mouth to mouth for whatever reason then tended to do nothing at all. Now more emphasis is put on "even if you don't do the inflations, do the compressions". Incidentally, likelihood of bringing back a heart attack casualty with CPR alone is approximately zero. Paramedic help is required, despite the rubbish suggesting otherwise frequently shown on TV. And on that cheerful note......

Hi All

I'm a SAR helicopter pilot.

A few weeks ago we had three survivors in the water. The rearcrew brought the first one up unconcious. They then had to go for the other two. Some one has to fly the beast. That left me the copilot to do CPR.

A SAR aircraft is full of medical kit. I have several thousand hours in the business. I know, in theory, every bit of kit on board.

I went down the back, pulled the guy out of the way of the winching station, checked for vital signs, and got stuck into raw unprotected CPR. I did hesitate at the thought, but I wasn't thinking straight enough to grab any of the various barrier devices around the aircraft.

I'm a professional, experienced, and arrogant enough to think I'm quite good. Faced with the problem I didn't think of any of the solutions, so I just did what the military teach you every year.

Don't blame the cc - you can't simulate the real thing.

Sven

This incident got me thinking and I'd like to add some of my own experiences.

Before I start, let me say that what happened on the Ryanair flight (obviously) can't be changed and seemingly only a full hospital ER would have been sufficiently equipped. The investigation/report will hopefully state on what really happened in terms of the gloves/barrier and what can be learnt from this. My condolences to the families involved.

(1) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's /early 90's
Male cabin crew member became ill just into the flight. Doctor on board and together with/via link to company medical officer came to a prelim diagnosis of kidney stones. Extensive medical kit on board allowed appropriate pain killers and other appropriate medications to be administered. After allowing the drugs to kick in and after numerous calls plus patient input/feedback the it was decided to push on provided no change in condition. Regular updates followed and the flight landed at destination. QUESTION: Did the above-minimum-requirements medical kit enable a diversion (including substantial fuel dump) to be avoided? Needless to say, diversion or not, minutes or hours, the patient for sure will have appreciated the pain relief received.

(2) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the late 80's
On last leg of the flight the aircraft diverted to a non CX airport on commanders decision due to medical emergency. As became known later, the crew performed some 30+ minutes of CPR including right through the landing. If I recall correctly the doctor/nurse aboard had at some point stated the fact that chances were increasingly slim. The crew continued nevertheless until handover to the airport medics. The passenger survived and made a full recovery from what was a heart attack. NO QUESTION: As published in the company newsletter, the crew did an excellent job and were credited with saving the passengers life. This incident still gives me goosebumps today (in a positive way). Not sure if any public press printed the positive story but I am sure that the 300+ other pax plus the patient will remember that CX flight and what they have seen forever and, overall, having been able to apply the training with such a result must have been a tremendous boost for the crew. Well done!

(3) CX B747 ultra long haul flight in the mid 90's
On the last leg of the flight a passenger became ill and medical assistance sought. Doctor plus nurse came forward. On arrival at the patients seat the crew volunteered the emergency kit and, as there was a doctor, stated to him that there was medical kit on board if needed. Again prelim diagnosis of kidney stones and after consultation with the company medical offiicer the patient received Paracetamol first with a stronger pain killer (Temgesic if I recall correctly) on standby to be administered by the doctor on board without further consultation with the company medical officer should the Paracetamol not provide sufficient relief. NO QUESTION: I was on board this flight and saw the both kits in action plus what I would deem to have been exemplary crew handling. The patient received relief from the pain and the flight continued to destination.

So to close:
- there is the emergency kit required by law
- there is the medical kit with a somewhat extensive stock such as BA, CX and many other carriers have on board
- there are the defib units
- there is crew training

As crew, a passenger, a patient or as pax with medical qualifications attending to another sick pax ... one can only hope that the aircraft one is travelling on carries as many as possible of the above.

For me personally I can come up with little excuse for any aircraft (regardless of airline, "flag carrier", charter or LCC) NOT to carry an extended medical kit. Apart from life being precious and myself possibly one day being in dire need aboard an aircraft ... if AVOIDING bad PR is not a reason enough ... a fuel dump, diversion, possible crew time problems and whatever else should be an easy equasion for any airline accountant - let alone for management with an ops background.

Defib units I could see a LCC declining on cost(/weight?) grounds ... but then it finally comes down to the question of what a passengers life if worth and what kind of airline you want to operate. We are talking equipment, not pretzels or caviar.

Training ... isn't that as much about meeting the minimum requirements as well as empowerment of your staff (be it up in the pointy end, further in the back or on the ground, be it for daily chores or emergency situations when the occur)? I think no staff is happy to be faced with running out of options/training/SOP's and being left with only "headless chicken" mode (again, regardless of where and for that matter even what industry). I think knowing what is on board plus volunteering the emergency kit plus making it known that there is (hopefully) a "bigger" kit available to qualified doctors is the minimum and at the same time somewhat acceptable, because ...

An airborne emergency aboard an aircraft is quite likely one of the top 10 worst places for such a thing to occurr - an that especially in a single isle plane versus the relative spacious luxury of a wide bodied jet.

Those are my 2 cents ... won't change anything but perhaps provide food for thought and again highlight the problem of "what factors rule our industry today". Perhaps our choice of airlines (when having a choice) based on the likelyhood of "the full works" being on board is the only option available.

Humans get sick (both crew and pax) and it happenes on aircraft (big and small, short haul and long haul, flag carrier and LCC) and it happenes at unpredictable times (V1, TOC, TOD or whenever) so this concernes every single one of us, flying on duty and travelling off duty.

EIDAH suggests...
You can say what you like about Ryanir but I am sure they would never break the IAA's rules its not in there interest they would lose there operating license.
An incapacitated 80 year old and a 10 year old child sitting in an Emergency Exit Row.??
What IAA rule allows that.
As for non-aviation background, you are quite right EIDAH, I'm retired now after 35 years at the front end of BA wide-bodied and loving it.
Perhaps that's why, EIDAH, having seen how the job should be done, I am less than impressed with the standard of Ryanair Cabin Crew

woodpecker

before judging "ex cathedra", wouldn't it be wiser to wait until we all know exactly what happened via an official explanation? i know it's not easy,as those investigations take time & we all are eager & impatient & the imagination of some on this forum has no limits, especially as ryr is involved.

Chinaman1119 I couldn't agree more.

I think you summed it up very eloquently. It isn't about minimum requirements but more about common sense. Diversions are costly and if they can be avoided then they should be. No-one wants to be offloaded in some remote airport with poor medical facilities if a proper medical kit would permit the aircraft to continue to a more appropriate place.

If you want doctors on board to volunteer their services then the least they can expect is the basic equipment to do their job.

The authorities may permit less to be carried, but does it make sense in the long run to skimp on these things?

You pays your money and you makes your choice, that applies both to the airlines and the passengers.

Blackmail,
I actually agree with you. All I have done is travelled with Ryanair on numerous occasions and highlighted the lack of professionalism often observed
PS Been away from the computer for a while, what's the latest on the Stansted Low Vis investigation? Anyone got any news?

ryr prof
 

hello woodpecker
could you elaborate:"lack of professionalism often observed"?
for stn rvr a fci(flight crew insruction) was published to clarify the matter how & when to convert vis/rvr's with references to the ops manual.
but here we are drifting out of the original topic.

A lot of the cabin crew in my airline carry with them a face shield or a pocket mask for CPR, even if it's not a requirment.
We have plenty of them in the medical kits but if you have a casualty you waist a lot of time till you get it, especially in a large airplane such as 777-300. So we carry them with us for our own protection and for a rapid response. I can tell u that it's not very nice to give CPR to somebody that vomited before.
We also have a defib on board of all the airplanes and the senior cabin crew are trained to use it.
I think basic CPR at least should be known by all the cabin crew and the airliners (even the low cost) should provide a lot of face shields and rubber gloves to the cabin crew. It's very basic stuff.

Can anyone enlighten me and others to what BA carry in terms of the emergency medical equipment on short haul dedicated a/c only, such as a 73 or A32? The point about Defib's is a valid one and I think might be something for the JAA and or IAA to sit up and take notice of, for all the operators throughout Europe.

Seat1a; you must not be reading the thread properly the equipment is aboard and no skimping as you put it is taking place.

"If you want doctors on board to volunteer their services then the least they can expect is the basic equipment to do their job."

The type of equipment you are referring to is already there. As stated by many posters.

If someone were in such a state as to need a Defib onboard a short haul a/c mid-flight and you are flying anywhere in Europe you would be considering diverting to an enroute alternate/ suitable aerodrome. I don't think the accountant would come anywhere near that type of problem or should even be in your thoughts with the options you would have available. We are putting safety 1st here are we not? Africa is a different thing altogether granted. Continental Europe is not though.

A 74 / widebody or another a/c in that type of size has a lot more factors to consider when diverting unlike a 73 or A32 such as overweight landings and fuel dumping etc. Hence the different type of safety equipment carried!

The question about what a passenger’s life is worth. Well I think safety and the safety of its passengers is the first and most important item with ANY RESPONSIBLE OPERATOR. Referring to whether putting Defib's on an a/c is the same as caviar or pretzels is shocking! If you think LOCO's look at safety in that way, then you show your naivety and lack of industry wide appreciation for safety management. Safety is NOT the remit of full service carriers only. The quicker people understand that the better. Do you think EZY or Air Berlin and the rest of the low cost market work in such a manor?

Woodpecker can you give examples of how the Cabin Crew on RYR lacked professionalism? If so, could you state your reasoning behind your statement to this affect?

Training and re-training is as people would agree an important part of being in a profession. LOCO crew's whether some people in the aviation industry like it or not are well trained professionals. We should all want to better our knowledge and skills. To doubt that the bare minimum of training is given to LOCO crew's is again naive. Where is the evidence of this against LOCO's and RYR in particular? Could training be improved in this sector of aviation? Well I am not an expert but I would like to bet that the answer is yes. The same as any other part of aviation. The military don't spend so much time doing this activity for the sake of it. It works. Then we wouldn't be flying PAX around though as we would ALL be in the sim or on courses all the time. There is a compromise to be had. The argument is and should be the amount of compromise in this. Only the regulators know the answer to that question.

Nobody is a fan of MOL. That man though is not the be all of RYR or the other LOCO's. :ugh:

Sorry for such a long post but some of the arguments on here need to be rebuffed. :eek:

My previous post where norunway called me an asshole, was to say that the airline I work for, now a low cost airline carry a full first aid kit and doctors box plus a de-fib, that de-fib, full kit and our excellent training allowed myself and a colleague to save a mans life having suffered a cardiac arrest without it he would have died inflight. Its the most terrible thing to happen to a cabin crew member so I do feel for the crew who only had the basics (if they did).
I am happy to fly with my airline knowing that should anything like this happen again we have the equipment to assist us or doctors if required. As a senior crew I am also issued with a small first aid kit to carry with me which includes gloves, painkillers, burn gel, plasters etc.

No Alibaba we are not talking about the same "basic equipment here".
What many are referring to is little more than a piece of plastic with a hole in it so that the mouth can be covered and the first aider can blow air in without making direct contact.
What I would consider minimum kit is what we used to call a "salad" airway. That is a piece of plastic about the thickness of a hose pipe and about five inches long and shaped like the letter "S". It is slipped over the tongue into the back of the throat to stop it blocking the airway and has a flange which seals agains the mouth, and then a small plastic "football" is attached to it. This ball can then be squeezed to pump cabin air or oxygen from a cylinder into the lungs without the necessity of a nurse blowing for 40 minutes. They come in a very small box, weigh next to nothing and cost a few pounds.
Now that portable automatic defbrillators are available I think you could argue the case that their carriage is justified, even over Europe, because whilst you might be able to get the patient on the ground in 15 minutes or so, that is stilll too long if the heart is not beating or in spasm, if you can shock it back into sinus rhythm then the chances of survival are much better. Yes it is costs money including the training costs, but I believe the passenger would accept the cost if properly explained. They already have to pay a "wheelchair levy", the extra cost would be peanuts.

Can I make one point clear.Unless they have changed since 203 ,kits used by ryr are about 8" by 8" and contain a motley collection of low quality bargain basement medical kit. Boeing std part number , get the aircraft out of seattle kits.Its the absolute minimum reqd by the IAA. I have had cause to audit one, and they are a joke. The extensive kits on CAA planes may not have saved this particular girl , but they are inadequate for all but putting a plaster on, so its just a matter of time. They are less extensive than the carry on kits carried by my current airline.Now we carry what is legislated, so do ryr. We both operate out of the uk ( forget the dublin bollocks) so why are they left unchecked. Just a flag of convenience. Total bollocks

The Defib argument is something that we do agree on Seat1a. I have no problem with that.

I can see the arguments on both sides of the coin. With proper training in its use there should be no issues with it being aboard. The problem is where a wrong diagnosis by a CC on a PAX that might have some sort of disorder with their heart or even something else, and then we bring a Defib out and shock the PAX could be just as if not more fatal than the problem itself.....

I do think it is for the authorities and airlines to look into with proper regulations on its use. To try and blame RYR though for not carrying this item is not really acceptable when a multitude of other airlines throughout Europe will not have this item aboard. They are following the regulations the same as any other operator.

The piece of equipment that you called a "salad airway" is slightly different I think? This is not really basic equipment but is getting into the realms of ER I am no DR though and I freely admit that. As stated above this is not something that you want CC to be doing to a PAX. If it can be proved that it saves more lives, then it should be considered. Are there any statistics that show the amount of people saved using this equipment compared to not using this piece of equipment? If there is, then medical professionals out there should be lobbying the regulators for it's installation aboard a/c as maybe a DR or medically qualified professional only type instrument.

RYR like most operators have probably considered these items but have done a risk assessment and decided it was not feasible as it opens themselves up to all kind's of possible litigation. This is the world we live in unfortunately. It was probably decided that the benefits would not outweigh the risks. If these items where used by properly trained medical professionals then I would see no problem with there use or storage aboard.

I don't think that most people at the start of the thread were talking about a "salad airway" or a Defib though. We are adding item's after the fact. They were talking about basic equipment such as a barrier and Latex Gloves. These are aboard.

Alibaba,

Just to let you know that the defib will only shock when the heart is in a VF rythm, it will not sock unless is requires it. It can also be used as a heart monitor only to assist a medical doctor or nurse should a pax be suspected of suffering from heart problems which can give an early warning. The statistics within my airline I believe are very good.

Alibaba,

Please let me clarify the defib versus pretzels or caviar thing. What I was trying to put across is that these warrant two completely different decision making channels, hence my words "we are talking equipment here". Caviar, pretzels or no nibblies at all is something that can be looked at to save on costs - a defib unit we agree is aircraft equipment category but that does not automatically make it a must-carry-item. We mean the same though: ANY RESPONSIBLE OPERATOR as you said

Ultimately every operator out there will have at some point had the defib/no defib decision on the table. If at some point in the past the decision may have come up as no, then the issue should come up for review at some or multiple point/s in the future. Be that for reasons of regularly reviewing your product/safety, the cost of defibs coming down, the spread of defibs becoming wider ... or an emergency on board your aircraft or that of a competitor providing hard grounds for review.

IMHO defib units do serve to treat a very specific emergency condition (if broken down into percentages), albeit a very severe and not uncommon one. These units will continue to penetrate the market but as of today I would NEVER have any misgivings against any airline that do not carry these yet. Clearly though it is always only a matter of time until a defib on board will be needed to TRY and save a patient ... or a pax doctor fails in reviving a patient without a defib available and later becomes vocal about it.

As to your mention of EZY or Air Berlin and the manor they work in ... if that was directed at me then let me just point out that I specifically tried to keep my post neutral. No RYR bashing, nor any other carrier or type. Why? ... because frankly I do not have the picture of how every carrier operates/thinks. I fully agree with you that these issues we are talking about here apply industry wide and regardless of operator type.

For sure there are LCC's that carry the "full works" and there are full service carriers that do not. And that exactly is the point of the whole thing ... how much medical equipment you carry and how extensively you train (or how safely you operate your aircraft for that matter) should NOT be an issue of how cheaply or not you sell your seats.

There are black sheep out there and to deny that would be naive ... often such less visible differences only come to light after incidents become public.

Woodpecker,

“…I'm retired now after 35 years at the front end of BA wide-bodied…”

“All I have done is travelled with Ryanair on numerous occasions and highlighted the lack of professionalism often observed.”


This ‘lack of professionalism ’ hasn’t stopped you using Ryanair then? A person of your experience … almost seems like a recommendation to me!

G

Did you not read what PPRUNE stands for ? the whole idea is to generate discussion ! ;)

To comment/discuss without Facts is to speculate.
So lets speculate.
If the passenger suffered a brain bleed, as reported, requiring CPR, it prob had affected her brain stem function. She would have been brain dead within minutes, but only a medic can pronounce, so most people 'die' after reaching hospital unless forensic/pathologist examination shows otherwise.
First Aid is exactly that. With a warm body any trained First Aider should be able to clear the Airway, restore/maintain Breathing & Circulation by ext CPR if possible until life extinct is pronounced by a qualified medic.
Rule 1 First Aider should not put themselves at undue Risk.
Rule 2 Patient should not be moved unless life threatened eg explosion,crush
Surgical procedures eg tracheotomy is not first aid How many scalpels/penknifes are allowed on board? The 'salad bowl' could be regarded as intubation, a risky surgical procedure - not first aid. A plastic film with a one way air valve and surgical gloves could be regarded as essential protection for the patient/first aider (Health & Safety)
As a first aider I would continue CPR and mouth to mouth for as long as possible or until relieved by a paramedic.
I am not familiar with current CPR guidelnes but chest compressions only are unlikely to provide sufficient air exchange to maintain life (snorkel effect)
Portable defibbrillators may be useful in certain medical emergencies if the first aider is current in cardiac resuscitaion protocols and authorised

"The fact that unlike BA they do not have a "utility" first aid kit, in addition to the sealed kits, with plasters, paracetamol etc is a shame but is not going to kill anyone."


I believe there is a "utility kit" as you describe it onboard RYR a/c. With all the types of things as above.

The recussitation kit my airline carries uses the portable oxygen system. A mask with a valve is attachted to the bottle regulator. Place the mask on the victims face, press the button to inflate.

However, if the heart has stopped and can't be restarted, with CPR probable survival chance diminish to zero in about 25 minutes. So if you're giving CPR in flight, unless you can be on the ground, shut down and the paramedices with a defib kit on board in that time, it's probably curtains. Some long haul operators carry portable difibrulators, but perhaps short haul operators should consider it too.

Alibaba,

BA have the sealed first aid kits on all services, which when opened have to be returned to the supplier for checking/restocking. This from what MOL stated during the interview happened on the Ryanair flight in question. He suggested that there were three of these kits on the aircraft (he was even going to sent one of the kits to the interviewer). There was no mention of any other "utility" kit being available.

BA have the "face mask" readily available in the "utility" kit, They even gave us all one of them during the SEPT (training) day one year. I still carry it in my wallet. It is called the Resusci Face Shield supplied by Laerdal Medical. Sensibly it has a "CPR reminder" on the back.

If Ryanair do carry a "utility" kit (over and above the IAA requirements) what does it contain? Why I ask is that a while back a fellow passenger (one of a party returning from a stag do!) wanted something for a severe headache (not sure if the word migraine was used). He was told that there was nothing on board.

He would have been told this as the crew are not permitted to administer paracetamol to anyone who may be / or have been under the influence of alcohol. The crew are not to know when the last intake of alcohol was, so therefore could be giving drungs out whiles pax is tanked up! That crew member was in her right not to give out any, and the easiest way to say no is that there are none on board. Why didn't you buy any in the terminal?????

There is a "utility kit" kit onboard RYR a/c. If MOL didn't talk about it then so be it. As we all know he gets alot of things wrong. ;)

I think ezybus summed it up perfectly as to one of the few reasons why you don't give drugs to PAX.:ok:

"He would have been told this as the crew are not permitted to administer paracetamol to anyone who may be / or have been under the influence of alcohol. The crew are not to know when the last intake of alcohol was, so therefore could be giving drungs out whiles pax is tanked up! That crew member was in her right not to give out any, and the easiest way to say no is that there are none on board. Why didn't you buy any in the terminal?????"

I think the thread has gone off track slightly because people are digging at anything to blame RYR.

I am no fan of RYR, let me make that clear. In terms of employee and PAX rights, RYR is disgusting. :yuk: There is probably no other company like RYR out there, which is so determined to make money at anyone’s expense or health. Unfortunately that is RYR and it's management. Until this changes, we have a choice though and if you don't like em don't fly em. Simple.